Tuesday, January 25, 2011

More Afterlife Twaddle & Threats: Is There No End?

Seems now Pastor Mikey is lecturing atheists on their unbiblical “beliefs’ (actually we have NONE,) and trying to convince us that, oh YES – spiritual apartheid does exist and sheep really are separated from goats and so (putatively) one can exercise such segregation in this life too.

Okay, let’s go through this one more time on the very unlikely assumption (based on near zero probability) that a SUPERNATURAL afterlife exists. (Note here: I distinguish between natural and supernatural afterlife possibilities, since the former was invoked by Sir A.J. Ayer after his near death experience in 1998, and on coming back from that he noted ‘just as there can be a godless life, so also there can likely be a godless afterlife”)

And I then expatiated on this by noting how consciousness could exist in the form of de Broglie waves that would meet that criterion. (To summarize: At death, these de Broglie waves are enfolded into p-wave packets that can escape their associated particles, and act like very finely scaled Electromagnetic waves. The waves also exhibit a similar form to propagating electro-magnetic waves, e.g. E(x, t) = E_o exp [i(kx – wt]) (j) and B(x,t) = B_o exp [i(kx – wt]) (k)) However, the consciousness that results is nonlocal rather than individual or personal- because the expelled waves mix with all other released waves, from all other dead.)

In any case, at least Sir Ayer acknowledged in a London Sunday Times piece published soon after his NDE that his “natural afterlife” was pure conjecture. Not so the extreme zealots and hyper-religionists! They claim the existence of such but as we saw before:

they mess up by committing a number of logical fallacies to make their case. In particular, the afterlife believer’s whole argument rests on the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantium or appeal to ignorance. Thus, the logic proffered by the afterlife believer fails as an argument (in the case of appeal to ignorance) since it requires us to accept the lack of knowledge (about an afterlife) as knowledge, and the lack of evidence as evidence!

One of the most notable illustrations of this nonsensical form of argument was given by Bertrand Russell. He was fond of suggesting that a teapot orbited the Sun just beyond Mars. He said that since no one could disprove his claim, therefore it must be TRUE! In like manner, clueless believers argue since no one has been able to disprove their claims that an afterlife or god exists, these claims must be true!

Following this line of specious reasoning, one would have to accept that the more evidence we lack the greater the likelihood the claim (afterlife or god) is true! This is total bollocks since it's based on the total sum of knowledge not yet acquired! Hence, total ignorance!In addition, it commits the ‘burden of proof’ fallacy which states if one cannot prove ‘X’ (e.g. “There is an afterlife”) to be false, then ‘X’ is true. Thereby, the inability of the atheist to disprove that there is an afterlife becomes the proof of an afterlife.

But this is invalid! The onus of proof (as well as knowledge and evidence) is on the believer, and it is HE who must provide it in the case of either his God or his afterlife, especially his “Hell” phantasmagorias– which as I’ve demonstrated at least six times before- is totally inconsistent with the postulation of an infinite deity since this would presume ONE all-embracing Being leaving no room for ‘Hell’ (unless it is inside or part of GOD!)

Up to now the inept pastor has steadfastly avoided addressing this logical conundrum, but given he’s already flubbed a basic test on logic, I’m not surprised.

Lastly, invoking scriptures or the bible to try to make any case is useless because it commits yet another fallacy: appeal to authority. One can’t base a claim of existence on what some scribe writes in a book, or in a chapter and verse (or hundreds of them) in his KJV.

Anyway, let’s see what Mikey offers in his latest rant:

It doesn't surprise me that you , as an atheist would say :"The fact is, "salvationism" introduces a false and VERY un-Christian exclusionary isolation and apartheid which Yeshua himself never evinced..."Well , I'd sure like to know what YOUR definition of "Christianity" is . Oh Yeah , I forgot - I DO know . It's letting proverbial spoiled brats like you and your ilk live as you please , and STILL enjoy the ETERNAL bliss of Heaven , RIGHT? Well , sorry 'Charlie,' - if ya don't get right with God before ya die - you may just be neighbors with 'da Popey , our "Catechist" friend , and others like y'all...IN HELL !!”

Here, his meds (or lack of them) seem to have induced total mental confusion. He appears to believe we (atheists) require some kind of benign definition of Christianity in order to assure ourselves (likely based on the specious Pascal’s wager) that if we’re wrong on our unbelief we can still make it to the Pearly gates – failing to grok that it DOESN’T MATTER TO US! (Since we are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% sure there is NOTHING after death)

What we are demanding from him is simple evidence for his claims, but he’s unable to give it. All he does is a lot of hand-waving and citing from his defective KJV to try to make a case- and it falls flat because no case is made.

The bottom line here is that the atheist doesn’t assert there’s no afterlife (or that "real Christianity requires no "Hell") because he’s “afraid of death” but because the extremist fundies (like Mikey) haven't provided any significant evidence to counter that proposition! All the evidence shows that when we die, that’s it, finito! Also, by the Ockham's Razor precept (the simplest hypothesis is generally the true one), non-existence after death trumps existence after death (since the latter is more complicated by having to posit special afterlife realms and beings as well, like heaven, hell, demons, angels etc....all way too complex!)

In truth, the atheist isn’t the “spoiled brat’ but the ADULT here! It is Christianoid whiners and infants like this guy who are the spoiled brats because they refuse to be held accountable for their insipid, delusional claims. Because believers haven’t delivered, the atheist is quite justified not to take their claims seriously.

Emotional cripples needing god crutches like Mike, who feel there "must be an afterlife" or life itself has no purpose otherwise, also exhibit a general tendency to resort to another copout that goes by the name, "Sob story". This also includes the claim, by extension, that if life has no purpose and it ends at physical death, then BOO HOO HOO...we could as well off ourselves right now!

Not so! We can act like grownups instead of bawling infants groveling for relief, and create our own authentic purpose! But see, those emotional invalids like the goodly pastor are too needy and mindless to stand up on their own feet - which is why they need to have their god and Bible crutches. Take their precious crutches away and they can't walk two steps on their own, far less THINK one independent thought not already spouted by some deluded scribe in the bible. Thus, only the existentially courageous can conduct their lives and direct and initiate their thoughts, without such crutches.

Worse, he entertains the ideation (based on his defective bible, the KJV) that only HE knows the truth and everyone else that doesn’t measure it the same way (including 900 million Muslims, 950 million Buddhists, 800 million Hindus, and 1 billion Catholics) are all headed for “Hell” and he knows it! And yet he still hasn’t been able to solve the Infinite Deity –Hell conundrum I posited. Thereby showing that minus his minor quotation and copying ability (which a well trained Capuchin monkey could do), he possesses not one minor brain cell capable of resolving a basic logical problem!

There is one word for this: PATHETIC!

Sadly, instead of logically and rationally addressing our critiques it is all too likely this pretend pastor will simply hop on his crutches again and bawl as he bangs his widdoo good book, cranking out quote after quote while demanding "there must be a God and He must have a Hell" for infidels like us. Never thinking that emotional tantrums have never substituted for coherent and compelling reasons and arguments, and never will. And calling us "spoiled brats" does not excuse or exempt him from acting like a true spoiled brat in refusing to provide EVIDENCE as opposed to stupid bible citations and more pouting.


Caleb Shay said...

ROTFL at the bawling baby who can't get his way! I get a kick how your brother Pastor Mike tosses everyone into Hell! Now, since everyone in the world can't be wrong that means to me that HE has to be the one in error! Good work!

Unknown said...

Considering how little we humans know about space, time, and consciousness, I believe atheists should be more careful in totally dismissing the possibility of an afterlife, even the possibility of a heaven and hell. Given this, the following statement seems a bit arrogant to me: “it DOESN’T MATTER TO US! (Since we are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% sure there is NOTHING after death).”

To educate yourself on a “natural afterlife” that unlike that described by Sir A.J. Ayer requires no continuation of consciousness after death, in any form, read:

"Your Natural Afterlife: the Non-Supernatural Alternative to Nothingness" at http://bryonehlmann.hubpages.com/hub/Your-Natural-Afterlife

Copernicus said...

The 'natural afterlife' proposed on the link is intriguing but I'd warrant the one I advance is more realistic- and plausible. Also see Stuart Hameroff's concept - which comport with nonlocal quantum mechanics, e.g.


Also, a 'heaven' and 'hell' of the orthodox version would still be proscribed. One would have to arrive at 'natural' hells or heavens, minus demons, Devils, imps, wights or angels -in the case of 'heaven'.

The simpler hypothesis - from Ockham's razor is clearly that nothing exists post death and the next simplest (according to what I advanced in the blog post) is that some rudimentary consciousness exists but is impersonal (and nonlocal) not personal.

True, we don't 'know everything' about space, time, consciousness to be 100% dogmatic (which is why I wasn't) but we do know enough physics - especially QM and quantum field theory - to eliminate most extraordinary hypothesis of afterlife.

Copernicus said...

As an addendum, let me make it again clear - since my blog post evidently wasn't - that I do not automatically "dismiss the possibility of an afterlife" - albeit I have made clear it is more likely based on nonlocal sub-quantum waves and hence nonlocal and impersonal.

As for heaven and hell, those - as plied by the orthodox - are inherently absurd (and contradictory) concepts, especially 'hell'. See e.g.




Copernicus said...

Back to the 'natural afterlife' hypothesis, its primary defect appears to be a misunderstanding of consciousness, i.e. in order to claim that a "natural afterlife" or dream state can exist at the end, minus consciousness.

The assumption appears to be that consciousness is a state that requires a living brain, but the work of Hameroff and others discloses this is a falalcy - and the point is that consciousness can exist beyond and apart from a corporeal medium.

Since everything disintegrates at death, then brain-linked consciousness terminates, but not extra-local consciousness as embodied in de Broglie waves.

IF then a final dream state does manifest, it would have to have arrived via this extra-local consciousness. It can't simply occur in a vacuum.

See also my posts on a materialist model of consciouness:






Again, I say that my model is much more scientifically based, as well as more coherent and plausible than the one advanced in the link about 'natural afterlife' - which would better be called 'unnatural afterlife' if is disavows any kind of consciousness!

Unknown said...

Sorry for not responding earlier to Copernicus’s responses to my comment on this article. I’ve been quite busy and besides needed time to brush up on my mathematics and quantum physics so as to understand Copernicus’s “afterlife.” This effort, however, I decided would be too time consuming. So, I’ll just make a few general remarks and leave it at that. Then, I’ll let the reader decide which concept of an afterlife—the natural afterlife as described in my articles or the “de Broglie wave afterlife” as proposed by Copernicus—is more “afterlife-like,” simple, and natural.
. . .
For the remainder of this comment, see the heading SECOND COMMENT under my blog post entitled:

The Natural Afterlife vs. a Quantum-based, de Broglie Wave Afterlife at

(My comment was just too long for Brane Space.)

Copernicus said...

"Again, this “extra-local consciousness” is beyond current scientific understanding! It is only speculation on Copernicus’s part and likely only a few others."
This response is targeted, as I believe one concise answer is all that's needed to address all your concerns, doubts

Actually, your claim isn't so at all. It is fully within the scope of the stochastic interpretation of quantum physics (i.e. as proposed by David Bohm, see his 'Wholenss and the Implicate Order') and also falls within the scope of physicist Henry Stapp's revised Copenhagen Interpretation, in his 'Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics'.

I also show the documented evidence for tying consciousness as a physically-based energy, independent of the brain, in my new book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'.

The problems you describe are typical for one not fully au fait with the latest advances in quantum physics, i.e. that go beyond the reductionist model of those like Victor Stenger et al.

Nor are these merely "speculations". Bohm points to experiments that can be used to confirm the existence of real de Broglie waves, e.g. Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J.: 'Foundations of Physics', Vol. 12, No. 10, p. 1001. He also frames this within a coherent mathematical

Stapp also present experiments that can be used to test his hypothesis for a non-reductionist interpretation of QM.

Both Bohm and Stapp observe that the synaptic cleft, with dimension of 200-300 nm is exactly at the scale for the Heisenberg uncertainty relations to apply.

Other links to inform those curious about how the QM-consciousness connection depends on which QM interpretation one accepts:




The primary experiment that discloses nonlocality is the Aspect experiment. Thanks to Bohm and Stapp, this can also be coherently integrated into a quantum model that incorporates consciousness.

An 'unconscious death' is of course, not to be ruled out. And it is what I myself lean to. But that means nothing, nada, in any kind of experiential domain. NO 'dreams', no thoughts, nothing! You are ''out' completely and permanently, never to come to - as an analog of anesthesia. We can call it permanent anesthesia.

And it necessarily means no 'afterlife' in any meaningful context.

One then has one of two choices: 1) total nothingness, or the rudimentary, nonlocal de Broglie wave -based experience I offered as an alternative.

There are no 'natural' afterlives other than this, and the burden is on those who claim it to either prove it can happen, or show a coherent mathematical formalism that can support it.

Copernicus said...

Addendum: In my first book, The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism, I took the reductionist Materialists to task at length, showing how any Materialism that excludes quantum wave functions is incomplete.

I also skewered Talbot's 'Holographic Universe' and his preposterous claims that extrapolate QM to "miracles" and other nonsense.

Once again, most atheists agree with me that that there is nothing once we die. We toss off this mortal coil and nothing remains, period.

The de Broglie impersonal afterlife is the only other alternative and its probability is extremely low - imho.

But your proposal of a 'natural afterlife' based on one's final cognitive or semi-cognitive experience or apprehension, seems to be 100 orders of magnitude even less probable.

Copernicus said...

A very understandable talk by Prof. Stapp on QM - Mind- Brain (body) issues:


Copernicus said...

Byron Ehlman wrote:

"The deBroglie wave afterlife is described using phrases such as “de Broglie waves,” “essential energy associated with the microtubules disperses out from the brain and becomes ‘entangled’ in a larger, undifferentiated whole,” “quantum coherence,” and “quantum wave states are stored in a multitude of microtubules” as well as by numerous mathematical equations. The complexity is enough to make one’s head spin!"

The microtubules were in fact originally proposed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. The de Broglie wave proposal doesn't really require them at all. The math eqns. are only 'complex' to those not familiar with them.

Quantum coherence is or should be a well known concept to anyone who claims to argue from QM, as is entanglement.

Unknown said...

Your newest book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God, seems interesting, and I will add it to my “To Read” list. Based on its intro on Amazon, it seems to follow a trend that I’m seeing of physicists postulating grand theories about the universe, e.g., Time Reborn by Lee Smolin, many relying on quantum theory and philosophy, e.g. Biocentrism
by Robert Lanza. Lanza hints at an afterlife similar to yours in the latter part of his book. I still view all of such postulations as plausible but as yet not generally accepted science.
. . .
For the remainder of this comment, see THIRD COMMENT under my blog post entitled:

The Natural Afterlife vs. a Quantum-based, de Broglie Wave Afterlife, Continued at

(Comment is shorter than my previous one but still too long for Brane Space.)

Copernicus said...

My new book is actually more in line with Henry Stapp's 'Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics' and his more recent 'The Mindful Universe'.

"Generally accepted science" is problematic because that is constantly changing owing to the fact what we are looking at in QM is not science but an *interpretation* of science. Specfically on the interpretation of the wave function.

FYI there are at least six different such interpretations, incluing Copenhagen, Stochastic and Many worlds. The CI is "generally accepted" by choice or vote (as at the Solvay conference) and not any rigorous science. As Stapp showed it was more a cop out to avoid having to address philosophical underpinnings.

My primary complaint with the NED and 'natural' afterlife - as I noted in my blogs of Feb. 9-10 - is that it actually violates physical laws, i.e the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thus, the de Broglie option is far superior since it violates no such laws.

Unknown said...

Because the natural afterlife involves absolutely nothing that is physically any different from what science assumes occurs at or after death, it cannot possibly violate any physical laws, including the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If it does violate these laws, then such laws are being violated every time someone dies.

Your blog posts of Feb. 9-10 clearly indicate that you mistakenly think that the natural afterlife requires a dream state that survives death. IT DOES NOT! A timeless, everlasting natural afterlife exists only as a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death. The combination of matter and energy required to produce this perception does not survive death. The errors and misunderstandings in your Feb. 9-10 posts are specifically addressed by my comments on these posts.